The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Controverter
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,294 times Debate No: 31850
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

KingDebater

Pro

God will be defined as a spaceless, timeless and uncaused being who created the universe. The burden of proof is shared.

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2/3/4 - Arguments and rebuttals
Round 5 - Rebuttals

I kindly ask for no insults or semantics.
Controverter

Con

Since God has been defined as causeless I would like to point out that any argument for God being that things need a cause will be self-refuted since your God has been deemed "uncaused" (which isn't a word by the way).

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Arguments
Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument

The Kalam Cosmological argument, as popularized by William Lane Craig, can be summarized as follows:
(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist;
(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Justification of the first premise
There are very good reasons to think that this is true. First, something cannot come from nothing, as if it could, there would be no reason why it came into existence and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Justification of the second premise
To deny God's existence and this premise, there needs to be an infinite regress of events. But this is impossible, as infinity isn't a number as you cannot add to it or take away from it, so when you're asked the question "How old is the universe?", you'll have to come to the conclusion that the universe had a cause.

Justification of the conclusion
This is the logical conclusion following both premises.

Part 2: What are the causes' attributes?
The cause must be spaceless, as it must've existed before space. It must be timeless, as it existed before time, and it must be uncaused to avoid an impossible infinite regress of events.

Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argument
The Thomistic cosmological argument can be summarized as follows:
(P1) Whatever is in motion is moved by something else.
(P2) An infinite regress of events is impossible;
(C) Therefore, there must've been a first mover.

Justification of the first premise
This is virtually undeniable

Justification of the second premise
I proved this earlier in this round.

Justification of the conclusion
This is the logical conclusion following both premises. Since an infinite regress of events is impossible, there must be a first mover.


Controverter

Con

The Kalam argument refutes God. "P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause." In round one my opponent says that God is "uncaused" meaning that your God doesn't exist.

P1 cancels out C because something must have moved the first mover, in fact P2 makes P1 impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

Rebuttals
Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument
Con says: The Kalam argument refutes God. "P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause." In round one my opponent says that God is "uncaused" meaning that your God doesn't exist.

God didn't begin to exist, so he doesn't have a cause. God exists, but he doesn't have a cause because if he did, we would end up with an impossible infinite regress of events which as I have proven, is impossible.

Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argument
Con says: P1 cancels out C because something must have moved the first mover, in fact P2 makes P1 impossible.

I apologize for any ambiguity in my argument. The first-mover is the name given to the being that causes the first thing to move, it does not move itself.

Conclusion
-Con has failed to provide any arguments of his own, which is quite a problem considering the fact that it's been specified that the burden of proof is shared.
-Con has failed to make any valid rebuttal to either of my arguments.

Controverter

Con

I didn't notice that the burden of proof was shared but since it is shared let me proceed to ultimately demolish the argumentation of Pro.

If everything that begins to exist has a cause then pro must firstly prove that the universe began to exist whilst explaining how this proof doesn't apply to God. Only then can they consider the Kalam argument valid.

As for the Thomistic argument, if all things in motion require a mover, then for God to be in motion, God must have been moved meaning that C is impossible. Additionally P2 makes P2 impossible because if an infinite regression of events is impossible, then not all things in motion can have a mover, since the first mover must have magically stopped moving (this is impossible).

Since the burden of proof is shared I shall now strive to prove God's existence being so improbable that one would be left to either completely convert to atheism or to be left so doubtful of theism and deism that they go insane.

How can everything exist if it had no creation? Well, think about it, if god exists without creation so can everything. The reason that this seems insane is the same reason that God seems insane, since a non-created entity seems so inconceivable to the human mind but this is due to the limitations of an animal's perception of reality (and humans are certainly animals).

How can everything have existed forever... How is infinite regression possible? The answer to this question is the same answer to the question as to how god could have existed for an infinite amount of time without origin. Whatever God came from, which is considered to be a point in the past so infinitely long ago that we consider God to never have had a beginning, can easily be transferred to the atheist's view of everything having existed forever without a beginning, creation or origin.

So now comes to question, if God's existence and non-existence are equally probable which should one believe in? This is where Ockham's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor) comes into play. Ockham states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. The justification is that Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

Rebuttals
My arguments
Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument
Con says: If everything that begins to exist has a cause then pro must firstly prove that the universe began to exist whilst explaining how this proof doesn't apply to God. Only then can they consider the Kalam argument valid.

The premise 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause' doesn't apply to God because God never began to exist.

Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argument
Con says: As for the Thomistic argument, if all things in motion require a mover, then for God to be in motion, God must have been moved meaning that C is impossible. Additionally P2 makes P2 impossible because if an infinite regression of events is impossible, then not all things in motion can have a mover, since the first mover must have magically stopped moving (this is impossible).

Con's point is only valid if he can prove that for God to create something, he needs to be in motion. This hasn't been established and Con has the burden of proof to establish it.

Con's arguments
Con says: How can everything exist if it had no creation? Well, think about it, if god exists without creation so can everything. The reason that this seems insane is the same reason that God seems insane, since a non-created entity seems so inconceivable to the human mind but this is due to the limitations of an animal's perception of reality (and humans are certainly animals).

Con provides absolutely no reason to think this is insane, he just baselessly asserts it. Why should we think something is insane when there is no reason to think such things?

Con says: How can everything have existed forever... How is infinite regression possible? The answer to this question is the same answer to the question as to how god could have existed for an infinite amount of time without origin. Whatever God came from, which is considered to be a point in the past so infinitely long ago that we consider God to never have had a beginning, can easily be transferred to the atheist's view of everything having existed forever without a beginning, creation or origin.

The answer is that God hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, and an infinite regress of events is impossible. God existed before time, so his past is finite just like the time's past.

Con says: So now comes to question, if God's existence and non-existence are equally probable which should one believe in? This is where Ockham's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org......'s_razor) comes into play. Ockham states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. The justification is that Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.

Con has given us absolutely no reason to think that God existence and non-existence are equally probable, and he never actually comes to a conclusion with the point about Occam's razor.

Conclusion
-Con fails to make any sound arguments of his own.
-Con fails to come up with a sound objection to any of my arguments.
Controverter

Con

Any reasoning you use to disprove atheism will be reversible upon god's existence.

If you say that everything had a first creator, God must have one. If you then say God doesn't because God had no beginning I can say that the universe had no beginning.

This will become a viscous game of Ping-pong which is why I resorted to Occam's razor which is true in everything in life but you can say what you like. God might exist but the probability is so low that assuming it would be like me telling you that because you didn't know where the first piece of poop came from, that it came from a unicorn.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

Rebuttals
Con says: If you say that everything had a first creator, God must have one. If you then say God doesn't because God had no beginning I can say that the universe had no beginning.

First of all, I never claimed that EVERYTHING had a first creator. Second of all, I've specified why the universe must have a cause if God does not exist, and the answer is that there would be an impossible infinite regress of events.

Con says: This will become a viscous game of Ping-pong which is why I resorted to Occam's razor which is true in everything in life but you can say what you like. God might exist but the probability is so low that assuming it would be like me telling you that because you didn't know where the first piece of poop came from, that it came from a unicorn.

There's no reason why it should turn into a game of ping-pong. Also, I never made an argument from ignorance.

Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument
Con drops this.
Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argument
Con drops this

Vote Pro!
Controverter

Con

I never dropped those arguments I destroyed them in round 3.

Also you never proved an infinite regression to be impossible and God is an infinite regression anyway.

If you say God isn't an infinite regression I can say the universe isn't.

I win either way.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
controvertor
indeed i also dont understand what i typed.
lol.
may be i was sleepy when i typed.
well still kingdebator may have understand that.
well whatever.
it happened so happened.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Someone please message me if the VB I'm countering is removed, or gets an improved RFD.
Posted by Controverter 3 years ago
Controverter
What the f*ck did you just say makhdoom?!

Made no sense!
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
you see king debator.

who ALLAH or GOD help.

you was meant to help him not your self.

you few days change help him.

loll.

real mystery.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Oh I see.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
I try going into a voting session and to vote depending on what I would choose if I was on the fence and this debate was the deciding factor.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
I was just wondering. It usually takes a while to convert someone.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
Yes why?
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Libertarian, is that vote honest? I'm referring to the two sections that say who you agreed with before the debate and who you agreed with after the debate.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 3 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Vote Pro.

"Also you never proved an infinite regression to be impossible and God is an infinite regression anyway."

Time started to exist and if Time(Succession, Change) goes back for eternity we'd never get to the present, count down from Infinity To Zero, Impossible.

"If you say God isn't an infinite regression I can say the universe isn't."

YHWH is not in time nor is He bound by time, He created and started time, He isn't in succession or change, He just is.

"I win either way."

No you didn't.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: CV removed. ModusTollens' VB is balanced by sweetbreeze's.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: So basically Con dropped everything. Or it's probably confirmation bias ._.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "I win either way." That's bragging. How could you be so sure that you'll win? That's careless judgement.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are refuted, and his attempts to escape refutation rely on semantics. For example, Pro says, "God didn't begin to exist, so he doesn't have a cause. God exists, but he doesn't have a cause because if he did, we would end up with an impossible infinite regress of events which as I have proven, is impossible." In this sentence, Pro claims that God doesn't have a cause because it wouldn't make logical sense for God to have a cause. That doesn't mean God exists, merely that God would not have a cause were he to exist.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con predicates his entire argument on a straw man. Never once did Pro argue that everything which exists has a cause. The argument was that everything which *begins* to exist has a cause. Things that don't begin to exist don't require causes. Why would they? It makes no conceptual sense at all. This straw man is the entirely of Con's criticism of the KCA. So, it seems reasonable to give Pro the KCA for this debate. It then follows that Pro showed the existence of god.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: removed
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job you two. I thought pro had better structure to his arguments. He also had more respect towards his opponent. Spelling and grammar was really close but pro was slightly better.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
KingDebaterControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made Pro's arguments work against him.